Julia Kunkel, Jürgen Groeneveld, Robert Finger, Birgit Müller
Grasslands in Central Europe are increasingly affected by droughts, leading to lower hay yields and reduced profits for dairy farmers. The insurance hypothesis suggests that extensively managed, species‐rich grassland is more drought resistant than intensively managed grassland. However, it produces lower yields in non‐drought years, creating a trade‐off between maximising yield and improving stability. In this study, we analyse how this trade‐off translates into farmers' management decisions. Using a mechanistic bio‐economic model, we evaluate outcomes across a wide range of simulated ecological, climatic and economic input conditions. We apply classification tree analysis to identify key drivers of extensive management under expected utility, cumulative prospect theory and an extension we call reference‐based valuation, where outcomes are valued relative to management‐specific expectations. Results suggest that farmers who evaluate profits against the expected outcome under each management intensity potentially adopt extensive management despite lower expected profit if it offers greater stability during droughts. By contrast, when outcomes are compared to the status quo of intensive management, or when farmers maximise utility, extensive management is only predicted if foregone yields do not outweigh higher drought stability. Our findings highlight that adoption decisions depend strongly on the valuation perspective, motivating further applications of reference‐based behavioural models and research on how farmers' reference profits might evolve under climate change. They also suggest policy entry points: targeted extension services and demonstration farms could broaden evaluation perspectives, while financial incentives such as payments for ecosystem services could reduce adoption thresholds due to forgone yields under profit‐oriented decision‐making.
{"title":"Can Extensive Grassland Management Pay Off for Farmers Facing Drought Risks? A Cumulative Prospect Theory‐Based Approach","authors":"Julia Kunkel, Jürgen Groeneveld, Robert Finger, Birgit Müller","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70037","url":null,"abstract":"Grasslands in Central Europe are increasingly affected by droughts, leading to lower hay yields and reduced profits for dairy farmers. The insurance hypothesis suggests that extensively managed, species‐rich grassland is more drought resistant than intensively managed grassland. However, it produces lower yields in non‐drought years, creating a trade‐off between maximising yield and improving stability. In this study, we analyse how this trade‐off translates into farmers' management decisions. Using a mechanistic bio‐economic model, we evaluate outcomes across a wide range of simulated ecological, climatic and economic input conditions. We apply classification tree analysis to identify key drivers of extensive management under expected utility, cumulative prospect theory and an extension we call reference‐based valuation, where outcomes are valued relative to management‐specific expectations. Results suggest that farmers who evaluate profits against the expected outcome under each management intensity potentially adopt extensive management despite lower expected profit if it offers greater stability during droughts. By contrast, when outcomes are compared to the status quo of intensive management, or when farmers maximise utility, extensive management is only predicted if foregone yields do not outweigh higher drought stability. Our findings highlight that adoption decisions depend strongly on the valuation perspective, motivating further applications of reference‐based behavioural models and research on how farmers' reference profits might evolve under climate change. They also suggest policy entry points: targeted extension services and demonstration farms could broaden evaluation perspectives, while financial incentives such as payments for ecosystem services could reduce adoption thresholds due to forgone yields under profit‐oriented decision‐making.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147507836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fuli Tan, Jingjing Wang, Yixuan Guo, Joshua Wesana, Taian Deng, Hans De Steur, Shenggen Fan
Biofortified foods offer a promising solution to micronutrient deficiencies affecting billions worldwide, yet their potential remains constrained by limited consumer acceptance. While information plays a critical role in shaping consumers' evaluation of biofortified food products, existing evidence on its effectiveness in improving acceptance remains inconclusive across different contexts. Moreover, there is a notable lack of systematic synthesis of the effects of information interventions, particularly given the wide variation in outcome measures used in the literature. This study examines how information influences consumer evaluations of biofortified foods and identifies factors that moderate its impact. Using meta‐regression analysis based on 87 effect sizes from 34 empirical studies across 22 countries, we estimate the average effect of information provision and explore the influencing factors. Results from random‐effects models and weighted least squares regressions show that information has a significant though modest positive effect on consumer evaluation (Cohen's d = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.25–0.30). Variations in impacts can be explained by product characteristics, information design, study design and contextual factors. Future intervention campaigns should be tailored to enhance consumer acceptance and support biofortified food deployment in regions with nutritional deficits.
{"title":"How Does Information Influence Consumers' Evaluation of Biofortified Foods? A Meta‐Regression Analysis","authors":"Fuli Tan, Jingjing Wang, Yixuan Guo, Joshua Wesana, Taian Deng, Hans De Steur, Shenggen Fan","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70031","url":null,"abstract":"Biofortified foods offer a promising solution to micronutrient deficiencies affecting billions worldwide, yet their potential remains constrained by limited consumer acceptance. While information plays a critical role in shaping consumers' evaluation of biofortified food products, existing evidence on its effectiveness in improving acceptance remains inconclusive across different contexts. Moreover, there is a notable lack of systematic synthesis of the effects of information interventions, particularly given the wide variation in outcome measures used in the literature. This study examines how information influences consumer evaluations of biofortified foods and identifies factors that moderate its impact. Using meta‐regression analysis based on 87 effect sizes from 34 empirical studies across 22 countries, we estimate the average effect of information provision and explore the influencing factors. Results from random‐effects models and weighted least squares regressions show that information has a significant though modest positive effect on consumer evaluation (Cohen's d = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.25–0.30). Variations in impacts can be explained by product characteristics, information design, study design and contextual factors. Future intervention campaigns should be tailored to enhance consumer acceptance and support biofortified food deployment in regions with nutritional deficits.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147489843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
High internal coordination costs may put cooperatives at a disadvantage in the production and marketing of agri‐food products with hedonic quality attributes. The efficiency of cooperatives and non‐cooperatives is therefore compared with respect to their ability to place wines on the market at prices that reflect their measurable quality attributes. The results of a stochastic metafrontier panel of 1240 wine prices from two German wine guides suggest that consumers should purchase wine from cooperatives if they are seeking a favourable relation between market prices and wine quality. In turn, members of wine cooperatives should ask themselves why non‐cooperatives are typically better at achieving higher prices for the respective quality of their wines and how they can close the price gap with non‐cooperative wineries.
{"title":"The Meta Pricing Efficiency of Producer Cooperatives Under Hedonic Product Attributes: The Case of German Wine","authors":"Rebecca Hansen, Sebastian Hess","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70036","url":null,"abstract":"High internal coordination costs may put cooperatives at a disadvantage in the production and marketing of agri‐food products with hedonic quality attributes. The efficiency of cooperatives and non‐cooperatives is therefore compared with respect to their ability to place wines on the market at prices that reflect their measurable quality attributes. The results of a stochastic metafrontier panel of 1240 wine prices from two German wine guides suggest that consumers should purchase wine from cooperatives if they are seeking a favourable relation between market prices and wine quality. In turn, members of wine cooperatives should ask themselves why non‐cooperatives are typically better at achieving higher prices for the respective quality of their wines and how they can close the price gap with non‐cooperative wineries.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147478096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jakob Vesterlund Olsen, Thomas Lundhede, Kahsay Haile Zemo, Martin Hvarregaard Thorsøe, Mette Balslev Greve, Michael Friis Pedersen
Within the EU and beyond, voluntary agri‐environmental and climate schemes (AES) are used to curtail externalities from agricultural production including nitrate leaching, biodiversity degradation and greenhouse gas emissions. This paper investigates and compares Danish landowners' preferences for temporary and permanent AES using a choice experiment (CE). We focus on landowners, who are the decision makers in terms of permanent land use change. Our study focuses on two land set‐aside contracts: temporary with annual payments and permanent with a lump‐sum payment. Results reveal that landowners require higher compensation if AES design implies giving up direct subsidy payments and hunting rights under both permanent and temporary set aside schemes. Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) direct payments were valued lower in the presence of the CAP agricultural activity requirement in permanent contracts compared to a situation without an activity requirement. As expected, landowners require higher compensation for longer commitments in temporary schemes and for rewetting commitments in permanent schemes. The average implied discount rate for schemes that mirror actual annual and lump‐sum permanent schemes offered to farmers in Denmark is 3.3%–3.4%, while that based on the CE is 1.9%–2.1%. Comparing implicit discount rates of hypothetical CE schemes with current Danish AES highlights a significant policy design misalignment. The implication is that current policy favours flexible annual payments, while the societal benefits from permanent schemes are arguably higher.
{"title":"Landowners' Willingness to Participate in Temporary and Permanent Agri‐Environmental Schemes","authors":"Jakob Vesterlund Olsen, Thomas Lundhede, Kahsay Haile Zemo, Martin Hvarregaard Thorsøe, Mette Balslev Greve, Michael Friis Pedersen","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70035","url":null,"abstract":"Within the EU and beyond, voluntary agri‐environmental and climate schemes (AES) are used to curtail externalities from agricultural production including nitrate leaching, biodiversity degradation and greenhouse gas emissions. This paper investigates and compares Danish landowners' preferences for temporary and permanent AES using a choice experiment (CE). We focus on landowners, who are the decision makers in terms of permanent land use change. Our study focuses on two land set‐aside contracts: temporary with annual payments and permanent with a lump‐sum payment. Results reveal that landowners require higher compensation if AES design implies giving up direct subsidy payments and hunting rights under both permanent and temporary set aside schemes. Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) direct payments were valued lower in the presence of the CAP agricultural activity requirement in permanent contracts compared to a situation without an activity requirement. As expected, landowners require higher compensation for longer commitments in temporary schemes and for rewetting commitments in permanent schemes. The average implied discount rate for schemes that mirror actual annual and lump‐sum permanent schemes offered to farmers in Denmark is 3.3%–3.4%, while that based on the CE is 1.9%–2.1%. Comparing implicit discount rates of hypothetical CE schemes with current Danish AES highlights a significant policy design misalignment. The implication is that current policy favours flexible annual payments, while the societal benefits from permanent schemes are arguably higher.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147380825","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Existing studies generally use “aggregate” temperature measures—such as mean temperature, degree‐days, temperature bins, and piecewise linear functions within the growing season—to estimate the impact of global warming on crop yields. These temperature measures blend temperatures from different phenological stages of crop growth, thereby implicitly assuming that temperatures are additively substitutable within the growing season. However, this assumption contradicts agronomic knowledge, which indicates that crops are more sensitive to temperatures during certain phenological stages. Utilising unique site‐level data on the detailed phenological stages of major crops in China, combined with crop production data and daily weather data, we develop an econometric model with stage‐specific temperature measures. We then compare our estimates with models using traditional aggregate temperature measures. Our results show that adopting an aggregate temperature measure could overestimate the damage of predicted global warming on crop yields by up to two times compared to estimates using stage‐specific temperature measures.
{"title":"How Aggregate Growing Season Temperature Metrics May Lead to Overestimation of the Effects of High Temperatures on Crop Yields: Evidence From China","authors":"Kaixing Huang, Peng Zhang","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70032","url":null,"abstract":"Existing studies generally use “aggregate” temperature measures—such as mean temperature, degree‐days, temperature bins, and piecewise linear functions within the growing season—to estimate the impact of global warming on crop yields. These temperature measures blend temperatures from different phenological stages of crop growth, thereby implicitly assuming that temperatures are additively substitutable within the growing season. However, this assumption contradicts agronomic knowledge, which indicates that crops are more sensitive to temperatures during certain phenological stages. Utilising unique site‐level data on the detailed phenological stages of major crops in China, combined with crop production data and daily weather data, we develop an econometric model with stage‐specific temperature measures. We then compare our estimates with models using traditional aggregate temperature measures. Our results show that adopting an aggregate temperature measure could overestimate the damage of predicted global warming on crop yields by up to two times compared to estimates using stage‐specific temperature measures.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147380826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Muddasir Ahmad Akhoon, Abhishek Shaw, Vidya Vemireddy
Developing country governments often launch new agricultural programmes without collecting pre‐implementation survey data, making it difficult to evaluate the effects of such programmes. Leveraging the flexibility of granular pixel‐level satellite panel data and a well‐developed quasi‐experimental policy evaluation design, we study a programme where pre‐implementation data is unavailable. We estimate the effect of cash transfers on agricultural productivity in Telangana, India. Treatment and control regions are within 10 km on either side of the state border. They are identical in all respects except for the difference in exposure to policy treatment. Agricultural productivity increased in the major monsoon cropping season due to the cash transfer programme. The findings also reveal that cash transfers helped reduce productivity gaps between irrigated and rainfed agricultural areas. Our results are robust to two different sources of satellite data, three alternative indicators of productivity, two rounds of full‐scale resampling, 100 rounds of small‐scale resampling and three alternative border designs. Placebo regressions of two previous years also confirm our results. This approach to policy evaluation is applicable anywhere satellite data are available in the world.
{"title":"Policy Evaluation in the Absence of Survey Data: Customised Border Designs With Satellite Data","authors":"Muddasir Ahmad Akhoon, Abhishek Shaw, Vidya Vemireddy","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70030","url":null,"abstract":"Developing country governments often launch new agricultural programmes without collecting pre‐implementation survey data, making it difficult to evaluate the effects of such programmes. Leveraging the flexibility of granular pixel‐level satellite panel data and a well‐developed quasi‐experimental policy evaluation design, we study a programme where pre‐implementation data is unavailable. We estimate the effect of cash transfers on agricultural productivity in Telangana, India. Treatment and control regions are within 10 km on either side of the state border. They are identical in all respects except for the difference in exposure to policy treatment. Agricultural productivity increased in the major monsoon cropping season due to the cash transfer programme. The findings also reveal that cash transfers helped reduce productivity gaps between irrigated and rainfed agricultural areas. Our results are robust to two different sources of satellite data, three alternative indicators of productivity, two rounds of full‐scale resampling, 100 rounds of small‐scale resampling and three alternative border designs. Placebo regressions of two previous years also confirm our results. This approach to policy evaluation is applicable anywhere satellite data are available in the world.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146153642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Most cocoa farmers in Côte d'Ivoire are trapped in a cycle of poverty and farming practices that degrade the environment. This paper aims to provide an in‐depth understanding of the price formation process for cocoa at each stage of the supply chain in the world's largest cocoa‐producing country. By examining potential inefficiencies that affect price pass‐through and could explain exceptionally low farm‐gate prices, the study seeks to identify segments of the supply chain where policy or market interventions could improve outcomes for farmers. Our approach couples econometric analyses using secondary cocoa price data and primary farm household survey data with qualitative assessments of institutional factors specific to the cocoa value chain in Côte d'Ivoire. Notwithstanding the country's highly regulated system of setting cocoa prices, we do not find evidence of inefficiencies that would explain persistently low farm‐gate prices. Nor do we find that the recently introduced ‘Living Income Differential’, a price surcharge on internationally traded cocoa, has benefited farmers. We conclude by advocating that the international cocoa industry strengthens its development programmes in cocoa‐growing communities, and that the government supports these efforts with better provision of infrastructure and other public goods. Such efforts could ultimately serve to increase the opportunity cost of cocoa production, drawing farmers into other employment sectors while improving the resilience and livelihoods of those who remain.
{"title":"Pass‐Through of Cocoa Prices Along the Supply Chain: What's Left for Farmers in Côte d'Ivoire?","authors":"Kathrin Kaestner, Gunther Bensch, Colin Vance","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70021","url":null,"abstract":"Most cocoa farmers in Côte d'Ivoire are trapped in a cycle of poverty and farming practices that degrade the environment. This paper aims to provide an in‐depth understanding of the price formation process for cocoa at each stage of the supply chain in the world's largest cocoa‐producing country. By examining potential inefficiencies that affect price pass‐through and could explain exceptionally low farm‐gate prices, the study seeks to identify segments of the supply chain where policy or market interventions could improve outcomes for farmers. Our approach couples econometric analyses using secondary cocoa price data and primary farm household survey data with qualitative assessments of institutional factors specific to the cocoa value chain in Côte d'Ivoire. Notwithstanding the country's highly regulated system of setting cocoa prices, we do not find evidence of inefficiencies that would explain persistently low farm‐gate prices. Nor do we find that the recently introduced ‘Living Income Differential’, a price surcharge on internationally traded cocoa, has benefited farmers. We conclude by advocating that the international cocoa industry strengthens its development programmes in cocoa‐growing communities, and that the government supports these efforts with better provision of infrastructure and other public goods. Such efforts could ultimately serve to increase the opportunity cost of cocoa production, drawing farmers into other employment sectors while improving the resilience and livelihoods of those who remain.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"286 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146042522","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fissha Asmare, Bethan Thompson, Tarek Soliman, Thomas Donovan, Klaus Glenk, Andrew Barnes
Quantifying and improving the environmental performance (EP) of agriculture has become an urgent research and policy priority. Over the past three decades, frontier‐based analytical frameworks have been widely applied to evaluate farm‐level EP. We present a global systematic review and meta‐analysis of 121 studies (comprising 800 unique environmental performance estimates) that use a frontier‐based approach for farm‐level EP evaluation. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we extract and synthesise information on modelling approaches, estimation methods, pollutant types, as well as other data and study characteristics. We also consider the determinants for EP. We find that there is inertia in the shift towards more recent and methodologically better environmental performance evaluation techniques, such as the by‐production approach and material balance methods, at the farm level. A random effects meta‐regression reveals that the methodological approach and estimation methods explain the variation in EP. Farm type and inclusion of determinants are also important. We identify multiple significant determinants of environmental performance across agricultural systems. The findings advance academic understanding of how modelling frameworks shape EP estimates. They also offer practical insights to help policymakers understand specific policy variables and farm‐specific factors that could be leveraged to improve environmental performance. For example, fostering pro‐environmental attitudes and encouraging the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices through extension services can help enhance environmental performance in farming.
{"title":"Environmental Performance Evaluation Under the Frontier Analysis Framework: A Farm‐Level Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis","authors":"Fissha Asmare, Bethan Thompson, Tarek Soliman, Thomas Donovan, Klaus Glenk, Andrew Barnes","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70027","url":null,"abstract":"Quantifying and improving the environmental performance (EP) of agriculture has become an urgent research and policy priority. Over the past three decades, frontier‐based analytical frameworks have been widely applied to evaluate farm‐level EP. We present a global systematic review and meta‐analysis of 121 studies (comprising 800 unique environmental performance estimates) that use a frontier‐based approach for farm‐level EP evaluation. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we extract and synthesise information on modelling approaches, estimation methods, pollutant types, as well as other data and study characteristics. We also consider the determinants for EP. We find that there is inertia in the shift towards more recent and methodologically better environmental performance evaluation techniques, such as the by‐production approach and material balance methods, at the farm level. A random effects meta‐regression reveals that the methodological approach and estimation methods explain the variation in EP. Farm type and inclusion of determinants are also important. We identify multiple significant determinants of environmental performance across agricultural systems. The findings advance academic understanding of how modelling frameworks shape EP estimates. They also offer practical insights to help policymakers understand specific policy variables and farm‐specific factors that could be leveraged to improve environmental performance. For example, fostering pro‐environmental attitudes and encouraging the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices through extension services can help enhance environmental performance in farming.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146000556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Olayinka Aremu, Patrick Illien, Adeola Oluwafunmiso Olajide, Eva‐Marie Meemken
Labour contracting, where intermediaries provide farmers with migrant workers, plays a central role in meeting the demand for seasonal labour on labour‐intensive farms. Yet this system poses underresearched challenges for both workers and farmers. A few studies, mostly qualitative, link labour contracting to exploitative conditions, raising concerns about workers' welfare (Sustainable Development Goal 8). However, poor working conditions are widespread in agriculture, and notably, quantitative comparisons between contract and non‐contract workers are lacking. For farmers, these precarious conditions pose a production risk if they lead to higher turnover. However, such links have so far been mainly documented in high‐skilled settings. Here, we address these gaps and provide the first empirical evidence on the links between contract labour, job quality and turnover intention. We use matched worker–employer survey data, rarely available in agricultural research, complemented with qualitative insights from a well‐suited case study: Nigeria's labour‐intensive tomato sector, where farmers recruit workers through personal networks and labour contractors. Using decomposition analysis—commonly used to examine gender gaps—in a novel way, we assess disparities in working conditions between contract and non‐contract workers. Our findings show that contract labour is associated with structural disparities in working conditions. Complementary qualitative insights show how rules, norms and practices embedded in labour contracting systems contribute to these structural inequalities. Paradoxically, despite poorer conditions, contract workers report job satisfaction levels similar to non‐contract workers—likely reflecting limited alternatives. Consequently, turnover intentions are comparable across both groups, with job satisfaction being the primary driver of turnover intentions.
{"title":"Contract Labour, Job Quality and Turnover Intention—Evidence From Nigeria","authors":"Olayinka Aremu, Patrick Illien, Adeola Oluwafunmiso Olajide, Eva‐Marie Meemken","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70028","url":null,"abstract":"Labour contracting, where intermediaries provide farmers with migrant workers, plays a central role in meeting the demand for seasonal labour on labour‐intensive farms. Yet this system poses underresearched challenges for both workers and farmers. A few studies, mostly qualitative, link labour contracting to exploitative conditions, raising concerns about workers' welfare (Sustainable Development Goal 8). However, poor working conditions are widespread in agriculture, and notably, quantitative comparisons between contract and non‐contract workers are lacking. For farmers, these precarious conditions pose a production risk if they lead to higher turnover. However, such links have so far been mainly documented in high‐skilled settings. Here, we address these gaps and provide the first empirical evidence on the links between contract labour, job quality and turnover intention. We use matched worker–employer survey data, rarely available in agricultural research, complemented with qualitative insights from a well‐suited case study: Nigeria's labour‐intensive tomato sector, where farmers recruit workers through personal networks and labour contractors. Using decomposition analysis—commonly used to examine gender gaps—in a novel way, we assess disparities in working conditions between contract and non‐contract workers. Our findings show that contract labour is associated with structural disparities in working conditions. Complementary qualitative insights show how rules, norms and practices embedded in labour contracting systems contribute to these structural inequalities. Paradoxically, despite poorer conditions, contract workers report job satisfaction levels similar to non‐contract workers—likely reflecting limited alternatives. Consequently, turnover intentions are comparable across both groups, with job satisfaction being the primary driver of turnover intentions.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145986495","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Thomas Slijper, Julia Höhler, Tanja Šumrada, Jens Rommel, Živa Alif, Jesus Barreiro‐Hurle, Anne Sophie Dietrich, Uliana Gottlieb, Thanh Mai Ha, Karin Hakelius, Helena Hansson, Vivian Wei Huang, Katja Knez, Gaëlle Leduc, Nina Lind, Yann de Mey, Ana Novak, Harold Opdenbosch, Enoch Owusu‐Sekyere, Oyakhilomen Oyinbo, Anton Perpar, Jaap Sok, Luuk Vissers, Scarlett Wang, Lotte Yanore
Research based on farmer surveys is a cornerstone of agricultural economics. Farmer surveys provide unique insights into behavioural variables—such as values, motivations, attitudes, behaviours, and preferences—that are unavailable in secondary datasets. However, the decline in farm numbers across most European countries, combined with a growing number of surveys, is posing a threat to farmer survey research. This paper synthesises current practices in farmer surveys in the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Sweden. Our approach is meta‐scientific, drawing on a survey aimed at researchers responsible for 34 farmer surveys conducted between January 2019 and August 2024. This analysis is complemented by a document analysis and critical reflection workshops. We identify three key challenges: (i) limited consistency and standardisation of socio‐economic survey questions, (ii) long surveys, which are associated with high attrition and low response rates, and (iii) low adoption of open science practices. To address these challenges, we propose a set of best practices to enhance the transparency, comparability, standardisation, and reusability of farmer survey data. These best practices aim to strengthen the quality of survey‐based research in agricultural economics and ensure that farmer surveys continue to support evidence‐based policymaking.
{"title":"Surveying the Farmer Survey: A Synthesis of Research Practices in the Netherlands, Slovenia and Sweden","authors":"Thomas Slijper, Julia Höhler, Tanja Šumrada, Jens Rommel, Živa Alif, Jesus Barreiro‐Hurle, Anne Sophie Dietrich, Uliana Gottlieb, Thanh Mai Ha, Karin Hakelius, Helena Hansson, Vivian Wei Huang, Katja Knez, Gaëlle Leduc, Nina Lind, Yann de Mey, Ana Novak, Harold Opdenbosch, Enoch Owusu‐Sekyere, Oyakhilomen Oyinbo, Anton Perpar, Jaap Sok, Luuk Vissers, Scarlett Wang, Lotte Yanore","doi":"10.1111/1477-9552.70024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.70024","url":null,"abstract":"Research based on farmer surveys is a cornerstone of agricultural economics. Farmer surveys provide unique insights into behavioural variables—such as values, motivations, attitudes, behaviours, and preferences—that are unavailable in secondary datasets. However, the decline in farm numbers across most European countries, combined with a growing number of surveys, is posing a threat to farmer survey research. This paper synthesises current practices in farmer surveys in the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Sweden. Our approach is meta‐scientific, drawing on a survey aimed at researchers responsible for 34 farmer surveys conducted between January 2019 and August 2024. This analysis is complemented by a document analysis and critical reflection workshops. We identify three key challenges: (i) limited consistency and standardisation of socio‐economic survey questions, (ii) long surveys, which are associated with high attrition and low response rates, and (iii) low adoption of open science practices. To address these challenges, we propose a set of best practices to enhance the transparency, comparability, standardisation, and reusability of farmer survey data. These best practices aim to strengthen the quality of survey‐based research in agricultural economics and ensure that farmer surveys continue to support evidence‐based policymaking.","PeriodicalId":14994,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Economics","volume":"88 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2026-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145938025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：